I like to keep this page clean. If you wish to reply to some one else's message, please consult the page history. JCScaliger

Appreciate another look at Fujiwara no Teika now. --maru (talk) contribs 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think he's too free with the revert button, but he's correct: the structure of the page, as currently constituted, is a real mess. I'll take a look at it when I can, but I'm rather busy right now. Choess 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, are you saying the sources are not good enough so lets just get rid of the whole etymology section? Present an alternative.--Eupator 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I reformulated the RfC slightly; I'm asking whether we should add the Category "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" to the page, and I wasn't sure whether you were in favor or not. Would you care to comment again? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RR, please stop the revert warring. If there's something you don't like about the references I added, let's talk about that. Removing them with edit summaries like "Restore grammar, accuracy, and academic references" is disingenuous. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of repairs to your edits, which now rather than removing the refs you didn't care for most hid and delinked them; don't do that. Also lots of other fixes caused by your careless removal of fixes I had done before. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JC, I reverted your undiscussed move of this article on grounds of WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA policy. Please take any further discussion on this proposed move to WP:RM. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, whatever your personal reasons are for an article move, it is far more important that the WP community has consensus for it. That's why i beleive the WP:RM process is the best approach. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help make some lemonade out of the WT:AT lemons? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know there is a dispute at Wikipedia:Article titles and the policy has been twice protected because of edit warring. Now you're starting it up again. If you continue, I will block you. I've been told I can't see the obvious, and that there is a consensus right under my nose. That may well be true, but the solution is to find an uninvolved admin to sort it out. If it's as obvious as people say, that shouldn't be difficult. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the solution is to find an uninvolved admin to sort it out." Indeed. I suggest you follow your own advice, Kwami. Taking action at this point for you is way out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously considering an RFC/U on three users... Noetica, Dicklyon and Tony1. The goal would be to persuade them to stop pushing their anti-consensus minority (not to mention ill-defined) view regarding unnecessary disambiguation in RM discussions and on policy/guideline pages. I suppose we could just focus on the apparent ringleader who causes most of the problem. I'd rather avoid all of it, of course. But the amount of time and energy wasted over the last month because of their stonewalling is ridiculous. What do you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My statement to Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the work-a-round for addressing the problem of unclear titles in categories? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't matter much at all, but I'm curious, why did you change the indentation of my comment here? I was responding to Tony's comment that was indented with 3 colons, so I indented mine with 4. You changed mine to 6 and inserted your comment at 5 above mine, making it look like I was responding to you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. Your input would be welcome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noetica^Tea? 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JCScaliger. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Article titles and capitalisation Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 594 words and 52 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JC, at the arb case, you said

• Dicklyon rewrites lead, without discussion; Dec. 2011.

but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#General_principles. There was quite a discussion leading up to this edit that you characterized as "without discussion". Even TechnoSymbiosis, who is usually an over-capitalizer, said "Forgot to note, Dicklyon, your proposed change seems reasonable." So I did it. Then I followed by saying "I made the edit; we'll see who balks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)" Nobody much objected; at least not enough to revert it or ask me to revert it.

You might want to edit your evidence to make it more truthful. Dicklyon (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you changed it to read "with some not entirely friendly discussion" you might want to link the discussion; either way, people will be wondering what the "not entirely friendly" is supposed to mean, or why there's no evidence about that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for remarkably pithy commentary: 'The reason Wikipedia has policy pages at all is to store up assertions on which we agree, and which generally convince people when we make them in talk, so we don't have to write them out again and again. This is why policy pages aren't "enforced", but quoted; if people aren't convinced by what policy pages say, they should usually say something else. The major exception to this stability is when some small group, either in good faith or in an effort to become the Secret Masters of Wikipedia, mistakes its own opinions for What Everybody Thinks. This happens, and the clique often writes its own opinions up as policy and guideline pages.' 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Article titles thread "Request for edit, Poll", which made my list of "Smartest things I've seen on Wikipedia". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially that last part. Well said, and it's hard to get this idea across to people who are doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't rescind the barnstar point, even now knowing you're a sockpuppet, and even knowing that you were probably opposing my own views when you wrote that. It was still well-said. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I said when I quoted it: I support some of your views (the birders should not force others to agree with them). Will you give another thought to what we disagree on? JCScaliger (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My mind is never as made up as people think it is. I just know better that to begin a negotiation by offering the highest price I'm willing to pay. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure to have met you. JCScaliger (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a sockpuppet account of User:Pmanderson which is being used to circumvent the topic ban imposed on the PMA account.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is quite a surprise. Where's the evidence? JCScaliger (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen has discussed it on her talk page: User talk:Elen of the Roads#Block explanation. – Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this person and his post from my talk-page; one of the few advantages of being blocked on circumstantial evidence is not having to deal with him. JCScaliger (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding is that the evidence was physical as well as circumstantial. And so the arbs consider this an open-and-shut case. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all circumstantial. I post from the same major university as Pmanderson; a good many people around here use semi-colon by habit. My limited number of posts have never happened to interweave with his. JCScaliger (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be legitimising the sock activities of Mr Anderson – having been duping ArbCom, admins, and the community at large since 2006 – by allowing him to use the sock for continued chat. I wonder why this page is still active. Tony (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Greek dramatists and playwrights has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]